Jailbreak

Cydia

It was recently discovered that Samsung lawyer Susan Estrich, who represented the company in Apple vs. Samsung, did not have proper licensing to practice law in the suit’s jurisdiction of the Northern District of California. The whole ordeal adds up to be another mistake in the South Korean company’s case management. According to the case’s official minutes, Estrich, a law professor at the University of Southern California and Fox News commentator, was part of Tuesday’s hearing regarding evidence spoliation despite lacking a notice of appearance and more importantly not being admitted to the Northern District of California bar.

The whole issue presiding Judge Lucy Koh’s previous order, in which she said “All trial lawyers must make appearances in this case and must be admitted in this District.” While Estrich said she presented the so called “me too” motion in good faith, the Court may still decide to sanction Samsung for the oversight. It was Judge Paul Grewal who first questioned the attorney on the matter, as Estrich confessed that the court records were correct and took full blame, stating that she thought she had already been admitted to the district since 1986. In reality, Estrich is only licensed to practice in the Central District of California according to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. To help fix the situation, the attorney “immediately applied for and [has] been admitted to practice before the District Court of the Northern District of California.”

Estrich released a statement in which she wants “the Court not [to] hold these inadvertent omissions on [her] part against the merits of [her] client’s case.” When it comes to her appearance on Tuesday, Estrich said her current law firm, Quinn Emanuel, asked her to argue the evidence spoliation claims on Saturday due to increased pressure on the team’s other members. The adverse inference jury instruction claims Samsung is being held to evidence spoliation standards over the company’s automatic email deletion protocols, a system that it argues is similar to email deletion steps taken by the Cupertino California company.

This step along with the fact that the company recently leaked excluded trial documents to the press certainly isn’t a good thing for Samsung. We’ll have to see how things turn out as the Apple vs. Samsung trial continues.

Let's all sign up for her class at USC!!! I hope it's an early morning class, I wouldn't need coffee to wake up when facing that.

Regardless of her politics, her legal awareness seems to be somewhat of a question. I'm licensed to teach, and I know where and what (and my pay is a LOT less than is hers). To "assume" you are licensed is to, well, make an aXX of you and me.

As for Samsung, it shows them to be less than on top of things to hire a lawyer who is not licensed to practice in the area of the trial. Usually, due diligence is a mainstay for any corporation. Big oops on their part.

Where do you come from originally?
Where ever that is if someone stole your work and claimed it as your own you wouldn't be upset?
I'm guessing if you went to court you would represent yourself and the old court adage "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client."

Where do you come from originally?
Where ever that is if someone stole your work and claimed it as your own you wouldn't be upset?
I'm guessing if you went to court you would represent yourself and the old court adage "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client."

I was joking... and I'm from Cali. I'm honestly really hoping Apple wins this. What Samsung did was pretty [...].